County Civil Penalties - California Community Care Licensing: Fill & Download for Free

I’m tired of Trump followers not accepting that Trump has been gaming the system for years, has many cases of fraud proven against him, and is facing criminal prosecution when his leaves office. Rather than have them look it up,I’m presenting it right here for anyone to read. 3500 legal cases involving Donald Trump, including fraud: Nest time you want to question the validity of public accusations against Trump, read the following article, which is very well documented.It’s interesting that Trump claims he pays his taxes when evidence indicates he has not paid any local taxes and has been citied by the local governments for non payment in multiple cases. He pays little in the way of federal taxes because he is such a terrible businessman. The Trump organization lost a racial discrimination case in which elder Trump built the apartments with federal money then refused to rent to people of color. Trump denies he is racist but the facts prove otherwise.People like Sean Hannity need to read up on the facts before they spew their hatred out for public consumption. His lies and disinformation may spell his own end. People ae tired of the lies and it would be well if the Republican party got it together and quit working against America, and began a new course of action that includes not attacking our greatest institutions, which are a part of this marvelous country.Legal affairs of Donald Trump - WikipediaLegal affairs of Donald TrumpFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to search(November 2020)For lawsuits arising out of his actions as president, see List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump.This article is part ofa series aboutDonald TrumpPresident of the United StatesIncumbentPresidencyTransitionInaugurationTimelineExecutive actions proclamationspardonsTrips internationalNorth Korea summits SingaporeHanoiDMZHelsinki summitShutdowns Jan 20182018–19PollsLawsuitsProtests St. John's Church photo opSocial mediaVeracity of statementsKillings al-BaghdadiSoleimaniCOVID-19 pandemic TaskforceCommunicationGovernment response CARES ActOperation Warp SpeedWhite House outbreakInterference with science agenciesAppointmentsCabinet speculationAmbassadorsFederal judges GorsuchKavanaughBarrettSupreme Court candidatesExecutivesU.S. AttorneysFormer ComeyPoliciesEconomy tax cuts repeal of the ACA individual mandatetariffsChina trade warEnvironment Paris withdrawalForeign policy America FirstIran dealGulf crisisJerusalemGolan HeightsTrump peace planAbraham Accords UAEBahrainSudanUSMCAKosovo–Serbia agreementImmigration travel banwallfamily separationmigrant detentionstroop deploymentsnational emergencyInfrastructureSocial issues cannabisSpace Space ForceImpeachmentEarly effortsTrump–Ukraine scandalInquiry and hearingsSenate trialshowPresidential campaignsshowInteractions involving RussiashowBusiness and personalvteAn analysis by USA Today published in June 2016 found that over the previous three decades, Donald Trump and his businesses have been involved in 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal courts and state court, an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate.[1]Of the 3,500 suits, Trump or one of his companies were plaintiffs in 1,900; defendants in 1,450; and bankruptcy, third party, or other in 150.[1]Trump was named in at least 169 suits in federal court.[2]Over 150 other cases were in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida (covering Broward County, Florida) since 1983.[3]In about 500 cases, judges dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Trump. In hundreds more, cases ended with the available public record unclear about the resolution.[1]Where there was a clear resolution, Trump won 451 times, and lost 38.[4]The topics of the legal cases include contract disputes, defamation claims, and allegations of sexual harassment. Trump's companies have been involved in more than 100 tax disputes, and on "at least three dozen" occasions the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has obtained tax liens against Trump properties for nonpayment of taxes.[1]On a number of occasions, Trump has threatened legal action but did not ultimately follow through.[5]Of Trump's involvement in the lawsuits, his lawyer Alan Garten said in 2015 that this was "a natural part of doing business in [the United States]",[5][6]and in the real estate industry, litigation to enforce contracts and resolve business disputes is indeed common.[5]Trump has, however, been involved in far more litigation than fellow real-estate magnates; the USA Today analysis in 2016 found that Trump had been involved in legal disputes more than Edward J. DeBartolo Jr., Donald Bren, Stephen M. Ross, Sam Zell, and Larry Silverstein combined.[1]The Trump lawsuits[5][6]have attracted criticism from Trump's opponents, who say that this is not a trait that conservatives should support.[5]James Copland, director of legal policy at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute, states that "Trump clearly has an affinity for filing lawsuits, partly because he owns a lot of businesses" and has sometimes used litigation as a "bullying tactic".[5]Although Trump has said that he "never" settles legal claims, Trump and his businesses have settled with plaintiffs in at least 100 cases (mostly involving personal injury claims arising from injuries at Trump properties), with settlements ranging as high as hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars[1]and recently as high as tens of millions of dollars.[7]Among the most well-known Trump legal cases was the Trump University litigation. Three legal actions were brought alleging fraud, one by the New York State attorney general and the others by class action plaintiffs.[8]In November 2016, Trump agreed to pay $25 million to settle the litigation.[7]Contents1Lawsuits 1973–19991.11970s1.21980s1.31990s1.3.1Business1.3.2Personal and sexual2Lawsuits 2000–20093Lawsuits 2010–present3.1Construction and property law matters3.2Defamation matters3.3Financial matters3.3.1ALM lawsuit3.3.2ACN lawsuit3.3.3Mary L. Trump lawsuit3.4Trump University litigation3.5Breach of contract matters3.5.120133.5.220143.5.320153.5.420183.6Assault claims3.7Poll watching controversy3.8Nevada early voting Latino turnout controversy3.9Lawsuit for inciting violence at March 2016 campaign rally3.10Payments related to alleged affairs3.11Lawsuits over congressional subpoenas4Special Counsel investigation5Allegations of business links to organized crime6Use of bankruptcy laws6.119916.219926.320046.420097Campaign contributions8Inaugural committee9Donald J. Trump Foundation10Controversy over tax returns11Destruction of documents12See also13References14Further readingLawsuits 1973–1999[edit]1970s[edit]Trump initially came to public attention in 1973 when he was accused by the Justice Department of violations of the Fair Housing Act in the operation of 39 buildings. The Department of Justice said that black "testers" were sent to more than half a dozen buildings and were denied apartments, but a similar white tester would then be offered an apartment in the same building.[9]The government alleged that Trump's corporation quoted different rental terms and conditions to blacks and made false "no vacancy" statements to blacks for apartments they managed in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.[10]Representing Trump, Roy Cohn filed a counter-suit against the government for $100 million, asserting that the charges were irresponsible and baseless.[9][11]A federal judge threw out the countersuit, calling it a waste of "time and paper".[12]Trump settled the charges out of court in 1975 without admitting guilt, saying he was satisfied that the agreement did not "compel the Trump organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant".[13]Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter of Trump's book, The Art of the Deal, said that the housing case was "a classic example" of Trump being "a counterpuncher": someone accuses Trump of doing something horrible, and he "goes back at them with all guns blazing.... And admits nothing." If Trump loses, he will "declare victory".[14]The corporation was required to send a bi-weekly list of vacancies to the New York Urban League, a civil rights group, and give them priority for certain locations.[15]In 1978 the Trump Organization again was in court for violating terms of the 1975 settlement; Trump denied the charges.[9][12][16]1980s[edit]In 1985, New York City brought a lawsuit against Trump for allegedly using tactics to force out tenants of 100 Central Park South,[17]which he intended to demolish together with the building next door. After ten years in court, the two sides negotiated a deal allowing the building to stand as condominiums.[18]In 1988, the Justice Department sued Trump for violating procedures related to public notifications when buying voting stock in a company related to his attempted takeovers of Holiday Corporation and Bally Manufacturing Corporation in 1986. On April 5, 1988, Trump agreed to pay $750,000 to settle the civil penalties of the antitrust lawsuit.[19]1990s[edit]Business[edit]In late 1990, Trump was sued for $2 million by a business analyst for defamation, and Trump settled out of court.[20]Shortly before Trump's Taj Mahal opened in April 1990, the analyst had said that the project would fail by the end of that year. Trump threatened to sue the analyst's firm unless the analyst recanted or was fired. The analyst refused to retract the statements, and his firm fired him for ostensibly unrelated reasons.[21]Trump Taj Mahal declared bankruptcy in November 1990, the first of several such bankruptcies.[22]The NYSE later ordered the firm to compensate the analyst $750,000; the analyst did not release the details of his settlement with Trump.[23]In 1991, Trump sued the manufacturers of a helicopter that crashed in 1989, killing three executives of his New Jersey hotel casino business.[24]The helicopter fell 2,800 feet after the main four-blade rotor and tail rotor broke off the craft, killing Jonathan Benanav, an executive of Trump Plaza, and two others: Mark Grossinger Etess, president of Trump Taj Mahal, and Stephen F. Hyde, chief executive of the Atlantic City casinos.[25][26][27]One of the defendant companies was owned by the Italian government, providing a basis for removing it to federal court, where the case was dismissed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the dismissal in 1992, and the Supreme Court denied Trump's petition to hear the case in the same year.[28]In 1991, Trump Plaza was fined $200,000 by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission for moving African American and female employees from craps tables in order to accommodate high roller Robert LiButti, a mob figure and alleged John Gotti associate, who was said to fly into fits of racist rage when he was on losing streaks.[29]There is no indication that Trump was ever questioned in that investigation, he was not held personally liable, and Trump denies even knowing what LiButti looked like.[29]In 1991, one of Trump's casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, was found guilty of circumventing state regulations about casino financing when Donald Trump's father bought $3.5 million in chips that he had no plans to gamble. Trump Castle was forced to pay a $30,000 fine under the settlement, according to New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement director Jack Sweeney. Trump was not disciplined for the illegal advance on his inheritance, which was not confiscated.[30]In 1993, Donald Trump sued Jay Pritzker, a Chicago financier and Trump's business partner since 1979 on the Grand Hyatt hotel. Trump alleged that Pritzker overstated earnings in order to collect excessive management fees.[31]In 1994, Pritzker sued Trump for violating their agreement by, among other ways, failing to remain solvent.[32]The two parties ended the feud in 1995 in a sealed settlement, in which Trump retained some control of the hotel and Pritzker would receive reduced management fees and pay Trump's legal expenses.[33]In 1993, Vera Coking sued Trump and his demolition contractor for damage to her home during construction of the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino.[34]In 1997, she dropped the suit against Trump and settled with his contractor for $90,000.[35]Coking had refused to sell her home to Trump and ultimately won a 1998 Supreme Court decision that prevented Atlantic City from using eminent domain to condemn her property.[36][37]In 1996, Trump was sued by more than 20 African-American residents of Indiana who charged that Trump reneged on promises to hire 70% of his work force from the minority community for his riverboat casino on Lake Michigan. The suit also charged that he hadn't honored his commitments to steer sufficient contracts to minority-owned businesses in Gary, Indiana. The suit was eventually dismissed due to procedural and jurisdiction issues.[38][39]In the late 1990s, Donald Trump and rival Atlantic City casino owner Stephen Wynn engaged in an extended legal conflict during the planning phase of new casinos Wynn had proposed to build. Both owners filed lawsuits against one another and other parties, including the State of New Jersey, beginning with Wynn's antitrust accusation against Trump.[40][41]After two years in court, Wynn's Mirage casino sued Trump in 1999 alleging that his company had engaged in a conspiracy to harm Mirage and steal proprietary information, primarily lists of wealthy Korean gamblers. In response, Trump's attorneys claimed that Trump's private investigator dishonored his contract by working as a "double agent" for the Mirage casino by secretly taping conversations with Trump. All the cases were settled at the same time on the planned day of an evidentiary hearing in court in February 2000, which was never held.[42]Personal and sexual[edit]In 1992, Trump sued ex-wife Ivana Trump for not honoring a gag clause in their divorce agreement by disclosing facts about him in her bestselling book. Trump won the gag order.[43][44][45]The divorce was granted on grounds that Ivana claimed Donald Trump's treatment of her was "cruel and inhuman treatment".[46][47]Years later, Ivana said that she and Donald "are the best of friends".[48]A sexual assault claim from 1994 for child rape was filed against Trump on October 14, 2016,[49]a case that was dropped and refiled, remaining in suspension as of November 4, 2016.[50]In April 1997, Jill Harth Houraney filed a $125,000,000 lawsuit against Trump for sexual harassment in 1993, claiming he "'groped' her under her dress and told her he wanted to make her his 'sex slave'". Harth voluntarily withdrew the suit when her husband settled a parallel case. Trump has called the allegations "meritless".[51][52]Lawsuits 2000–2009[edit]In 2000, Donald Trump paid $250,000 to settle fines related to charges brought by New York State Lobbying Commission director David Grandeau. Trump was charged with circumventing state law to spend $150,000 lobbying against government approval of plans to construct an Indian-run casino in the Catskills, which would have diminished casino traffic to Trump's casinos in Atlantic City.[53][54]From 2000 on, Trump tried to partner with a German venture in building a "Trump Tower Europe" in Germany. The company founded for this, "TD Trump Deutschland AG" was dissolved in 2003, several lawsuits following in the years thereafter.[55]In 2001, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought a financial-reporting case against Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc., alleging that the company had committed several "misleading statements in the company's third-quarter 1999 earnings release". Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc. consented to the commission's cease-and-desist order, said the culprit had been dismissed, and that Trump had personally been unaware of the matter.[56][57][58]Trump sued Leona Helmsley,[59]and Helmsley counter-sued Trump[60]due to contentions regarding ownership and operation of the Empire State Building. In 2002, Trump announced that he and his Japanese business partners, were selling the Empire State Building to partners of his rival Leona Helmsley.[61][62]In 2003, the city of Stuttgart denied TD Trump Deutschland AG, a Trump Organization subsidiary, the permission to build a planned tower due to questions over its financing. Trump Deutschland sued the city of Stuttgart, and lost. In 2004 Trump's German corporate partner brought suit against the Trump Organization for failure to pay back a EUR 200 million pre-payment as promised. In 2005, the German state attorney prosecuted Trump Deutschland and its partners for accounting fraud.[63][64][65]In 2004, Donald Trump sued Richard T. Fields in Broward County Circuit Court (in Florida); Fields was once Trump's business partner in the casino business, but had recently become a successful casino developer in Florida apart from Trump. Fields counter-sued Trump in Florida court. Trump alleged that Fields misled other parties into believing he still consulted for Trump, and Fields alleged improprieties in Trump's business.[66]The two businessmen agreed in 2008 to drop the lawsuits when Fields agreed to buy Trump Marina in Atlantic City, New Jersey, for $316 million,[67]but the deal was unsettled again in 2009 because Trump resigned his leadership of Trump Entertainment after Fields lowered his bid.[68]Fields never bought the company, which went into bankruptcy about the same time and was sold for $38 million.[69][70]Trump's lawsuit was dismissed after a hearing in 2010.[71]In 2004, the Trump Organization partnered with Bayrock Group on a $200 million hotel and condo project in Fort Lauderdale Beach, to be called Trump International Hotel & Tower. After proceeding for five years, real estate market devaluation stymied the project in 2009 and Trump dissolved his licensing deal, demanding that his name be removed from the building. Soon after this, the project defaulted on a $139 million loan in 2010.[72]Investors later sued the developers for fraud. Trump petitioned to have his name removed from the suit, saying he had only lent his name to the project. However his request was refused since he had participated in advertising for it.[73]The insolvent building project spawned over 10 lawsuits, some of which were still not settled in early 2016.[74]In 2006, the Town of Palm Beach began fining Trump $250 per day for ordinance violations related to his erection of an 80-foot-tall (24 m) flagpole flying a 15 by 25 feet (4.6 by 7.6 m) American flag on his property. Trump sued the town for $25 million, saying that they abridged his free speech, also disputing an ordinance that local businesses be "town-serving". The two parties settled as part of a court-ordered mediation, in which Trump was required to donate $100,000 to veterans' charities. At the same time, the town ordinance was modified allowing Trump to enroll out-of-town members in his Mar-a-Lago social club.[75]Trump International Hotel and Tower in ChicagoAfter the 2008 housing-market collapse, Deutsche Bank attempted to collect $40 million that Donald Trump personally guaranteed against their $640 million loan for Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago. Rather than paying the debt, Trump sued Deutsche Bank for $3 billion for undermining the project and damage to his reputation.[76]Deutsche Bank then filed suit to obtain the $40 million. The two parties settled in 2010 with Deutsche Bank extending the loan term by five years.[77]In 2008, Trump filed a $100 million lawsuit for alleged fraud and civil rights violations[78]against the California city of Rancho Palos Verdes, over thwarted luxury home development and expansion plans upon part of a landslide-prone golf course in the area, which was purchased by Trump in 2002 for $27 million.[78]Trump had previously sued a local school district over land leased from them in the re-branded Trump National Golf Club, and had further angered some local residents by renaming a thoroughfare after himself.[78]The $100 million suit was ultimately withdrawn in 2012 with Trump and the city agreeing to modified geological surveys and permit extensions for some 20 proposed luxury homes (in addition to 36 homes previously approved).[79][80]Trump ultimately opted for a permanent conservation easement instead of expanded housing development on the course's driving range.[81]In 2008, developer Leslie Dick Worldwide Ltd., New York, filed a RICO complaint against 17 parties, including Donald Trump, financier George Soros, Fortress Investment Group and Cerberus Capital Management, over the 2003 sale of the General Motors Corp. Building in midtown Manhattan. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice a year later.[82][83]In 2009, Donald Trump sued a law firm he had used, Morrison Cohen, for $5 million for mentioning his name and providing links to related news articles on its website. This lawsuit followed a lawsuit by Trump alleging overcharging by the law firm, and a countersuit by Morrison Cohen seeking unpaid legal fees.[84]The suit was dismissed in a 15-page ruling by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten, who ruled that the links to news articles concerned "matters of public interest."[85]In 2009, Trump was sued by investors who had made deposits for condos in the canceled Trump Ocean Resort Baja Mexico.[86]The investors said that Trump misrepresented his role in the project, stating after its failure that he had been little more than a spokesperson for the entire venture, disavowing any financial responsibility for the debacle.[87]Investors were informed that their investments would not be returned due to the cancellation of construction.[86]In 2013, Trump settled the lawsuit with more than one hundred prospective condo owners for an undisclosed amount.[88]Lawsuits 2010–present[edit]Construction and property law matters[edit]In 2011, Donald Trump sued Scotland, alleging that it built the Aberdeen Bay Wind Farm after assuring him it would not be built. He had recently built a golf course there and planned to build an adjacent hotel. Trump lost his suit, with the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom unanimously ruling in favor of the Scottish government in 2015.[89][90]In 2013, 87-year-old Jacqueline Goldberg unsuccessfully sued Trump on allegations that he cheated her in a condominium sale by bait-and-switch when she was purchasing properties at the Trump International Hotel and Tower.[91]In 2015, Trump initiated a $100 million lawsuit against Palm Beach County claiming that officials, in a "deliberate and malicious" act, pressured the FAA to direct air traffic to the Palm Beach International Airport over his Mar-a-Lago estate, because he said the airplanes damaged the building and disrupted its ambiance.[92]Trump had previously sued the county twice over airport noise; the first lawsuit, in 1995, ended with an agreement between Trump and the county; Trump's second lawsuit, in 2010, was dismissed.[92]Trump is suing the town of Ossining, New York, over the property tax valuation on his 147-acre (59 ha) Trump National Golf Club Westchester, located in Briarcliff Manor's portion of the town, which Trump purchased for around $8 million at a foreclosure sale in the 1990s and to which he claimed, at the club's opening, to have added $45 million in facility improvements.[93]Although Trump stated in his 2015 FEC filing that the property was worth at least $50 million, his lawsuit seeks a $1.4 million valuation on the property, which includes a 75,000-square-foot clubhouse, five overnight suites, and permission to build 71 condominium units,[93]in an effort to shave $424,176 from his annual local property tax obligations.[94]Trump filed the action after separately being sued by Briarcliff Manor for "intentional and illegal modifications" to a drainage system that caused more than $238,000 in damage to the village's library, public pool, and park facilities during a 2011 storm.[94]In October 2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that Trump, together with two principals of a connected developer, could be sued for various claims, including oppression, collusion and breach of fiduciary duties, in relation to his role in the marketing of units in the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Toronto, Canada.[95]A subsequent application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada in March 2017.[96]Also in October 2016, JCF Capital ULC (a private firm that had bought the construction loan on the building) announced that it was seeking court approval under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to have the building sold in order to recoup its debt, which then totaled $301 million.[97]The court allowed for its auction[98]which took place in March 2017, but no bidders, apart from one stalking horse offer, took part.[99]Defamation matters[edit]Also in 2011, an appellate court upheld a New Jersey Superior Court judge's decision dismissing Trump's $5 billion defamation lawsuit against author Timothy L. O'Brien, who had reported in his book, TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald (2005), that Trump's true net worth was really between $150 and $250 million. Trump had reportedly told O'Brien he was worth billions and, in 2005, had publicly stated such.[100]Trump said that the author's alleged underestimation of his net worth was motivated by malice and had cost him business deals and damage to his reputation.[101]The appellate court, however, ruled against Trump, citing the consistency of O'Brien's three confidential sources.[102]In 2014, the former Miss Pennsylvania Sheena Monnin ultimately settled a $5 million arbitration judgment against her, having been sued by Trump after alleging that the Miss USA 2012 pageant results were rigged. Monnin wrote on her Facebook page that another contestant told her during a rehearsal that she had seen a list of the top five finalists, and when those names were called in their precise order, Monnin realized the pageant election process was suspect, compelling Monnin to resign her Miss Pennsylvania title. The Trump Organization's lawyer said that Monnin's allegations had cost the pageant a lucrative British Petroleum sponsorship deal and threatened to discourage women from entering Miss USA contests in the future.[103]According to Monnin, testimony from the Miss Universe Organization and Ernst & Young revealed that the top 15 finalists were selected by pageant directors regardless of preliminary judges' scores.[104]As part of the settlement, Monnin was not required to retract her original statements.[103]On January 17, 2017, Summer Zervos, represented by attorney Gloria Allred, filed a defamation suit against President-elect Donald Trump for claiming that she had lied in her public sexual assault allegations against him.[105]Financial matters[edit]ALM lawsuit[edit]In July 2011, New York firm ALM Unlimited filed a lawsuit against Trump for non-payment. ALM had been hired in 2003 to seek offers from clothing companies for a Trump fashion line, and it had arranged a meeting between Trump and PVH, which licensed the Trump name for dress shirts and neckwear. ALM, which had received over $300,000 during a three-year period, alleged in the lawsuit that Trump's discontinuation of payments in 2008 was against their initial agreement. In pre-trial depositions, Trump and two of his business officials – attorney George H. Ross and executive vice president of global licensing Cathy Glosser – gave contradictory statements regarding whether ALM was entitled to payments. Trump, who felt that ALM had only a limited role in the deal between him and PVH, said "I have thousands of checks that I sign a week, and I don't look at very many of the checks; and eventually I did look, and when I saw them (ALM) I stopped paying them because I knew it was a mistake or somebody made a mistake."[106]Trump and ALM failed to settle, and in January 2013 a judge ordered that the case go to trial.[107]During the trial in April 2013, Trump said that ALM's role in the PVH agreement was insubstantial, stating that Regis Philbin (rather than ALM) was the one who recommended PVH to him. Trump's attorney, Alan Garten, said ALM was not legally entitled to any money.[107][108][109]The judge ruled in favor of Trump later that month because there had never been a valid contract between him and ALM.[109]ACN lawsuit[edit]Main article: ACN Inc.As of 2019, investors are suing Donald Trump and his family for fraud, false advertising, and unfair competition. They allege that Trump recommended the multi-level marketing company ACN as a good investment and that Trump did not disclose that he was being paid by ACN.Mary L. Trump lawsuit[edit]Further information: Fred Trump § Wealth and death, Fred Trump Jr., and Too Much and Never EnoughTrump's niece, Mary L. Trump, opened a lawsuit against the president and his siblings Robert and Maryanne Trump, alleging that they conducted fraud to keep her and her brother out of the will of Fred Trump (Donald's father), including by conspiring with a trustee assigned to her, and acted to devalue her interests in the family business—effectively defrauding her of tens of millions of dollars. Further, she alleges that these accomplices pressured her to sign a settlement agreement by threatening to bankrupt interests benefitting her and cut off the healthcare insurance for her infant nephew, who was then suffering from cerebral palsy.[110]Trump University litigation[edit]Main article: Trump University § Allegations of impropriety and lawsuitsIn 2013, in a lawsuit filed by New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman, Trump was accused of defrauding more than 5,000 people of $40 million for the opportunity to learn Trump's real estate investment techniques in a for-profit training program, Trump University, which operated from 2005 to 2011.[111][112][113]Trump ultimately stopped using the term "University" following a 2010 order from New York regulators, who called Trump's use of the word "misleading and even illegal"; the state had previously warned Trump in 2005 to drop the term or not offer seminars in New York.[114][115][116]Although Trump has claimed a 98% approval rating on course evaluations, former students recounted high-pressure tactics from instructors seeking the highest possible ratings, including threats of withholding graduation certificates,[117]. In addition, the high reviews were solicited before the courses ended, when the students still anticipated receiving benefits that ultimately never materialized. Subsequently, more than 2,000 students sought and received course refunds before the end of their paid seminars.[117]In a separate class action civil suit against Trump University in mid-February 2014, a San Diego federal judge allowed claimants in California, Florida, and New York to proceed;[118]a Trump counterclaim, alleging that the state attorney general's investigation was accompanied by a campaign donation shakedown, was investigated by a New York ethics board and dismissed in August 2015.[119]Trump filed a $1 million defamation suit against former Trump University student Tarla Makaeff, who had spent about $37,000 on seminars, after she joined the class action lawsuit and publicized her classroom experiences on social media.[87]Trump University was later ordered by a U.S. district judge in April 2015 to pay Makaeff and her lawyers $798,774.24 in legal fees and costs.[87][120]Donald Trump was found to have defrauded students, and was forced to pay $25 million in restitution.Breach of contract matters[edit]2013[edit]In 2013 Trump sued comedian Bill Maher for $5 million for breach of contract.[121]Maher had appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and had offered to pay $5 million to a charity if Trump produced his birth certificate to prove that Trump's mother had not mated with an orangutan. This was said by Maher in response to Trump having previously challenged Obama to produce his birth certificate, and offering $5 million payable to a charity of Obama's choice, if Obama produced his college applications, transcripts, and passport records.[122][123]Trump produced his birth certificate and filed a lawsuit after Maher was not forthcoming, claiming that Maher's $5 million offer was legally binding. "I don't think he was joking," Trump said. "He said it with venom."[122]Trump withdrew his lawsuit against the comedian after eight weeks.[124]2014[edit]In 2014, model Alexia Palmer filed a civil suit against Trump Model Management for promising a $75,000 annual salary but paying only $3,380.75 for three years' work. Palmer, who came to the US at age 17 from Jamaica under the H-1B visa program in 2011,[125]claimed to be owed more than $200,000. Palmer contended that Trump Model Management charged, in addition to a management fee, "obscure expenses" from postage to limousine rides that consumed the remainder of her compensation. Palmer alleged that Trump Model Management promised to withhold only 20% of her net pay as agency expenses, but after charging her for those "obscure expenses", ended up taking 80%.[126]Trump attorney Alan Garten claimed the lawsuit is "bogus and completely frivolous".[127][128]Palmer filed a class-action lawsuit against the modeling agency with similar allegations.[129]The case was dismissed from U.S. federal court in March 2016, in part because Palmer's immigration status, via H1-B visa sponsored by Trump, required labor complaints to be filed through a separate process.[126][130]2015[edit]In 2015, Trump sued Univision, demanding $500 million for breach of contract and defamation when they dropped their planned broadcast of the Miss USA pageant. The network said that the decision was made because of Trump's "insulting remarks about Mexican immigrants".[131]Trump settled the lawsuit with Univision CEO Randy Falco out of court.[132]In July 2015, Trump filed a $10 million lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court for breach of contract against Spanish celebrity chef José Andrés, claiming that he backed out of a deal to open the flagship restaurant at Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.[133][134]Andrés replied that Trump's lawsuit was "both unsurprising and without merit"[135]and filed an $8 million counterclaim against a Trump Organization subsidiary.[134][136]Also in July 2015, Chef Geoffrey Zakarian also withdrew from the Washington, D.C., project with Andrés in the wake of Trump's comments on Mexican illegal immigrants, and is expected to lose his own $500,000 restaurant lease deposit as a result.[135]Trump denounced and then sued Zakarian in August 2015 for a sum "in excess of $10 million" for lost rent and other damages.[137]Trump's lawsuit called Zakarian's offense at his remarks "curious in light of the fact that Mr. Trump's publicly shared views on immigration have remained consistent for many years, and Mr. Trump's willingness to frankly share his opinions is widely known".[137][138]Disputes with both chefs were eventually settled in April 2017.[139]In 2015, restaurant workers at Trump SoHo filed a lawsuit that from 2009 to at least the time of the filing, gratuities added to customers' checks were illegally withheld from employees. The Trump Organization has responded that the dispute is between the employees and their employer, a third-party contractor. Donald Trump has been scheduled to testify in court on September 1, 2016.[140][141]2018[edit]Further information: List of lawsuits involving Donald TrumpIn 2018, Noel Cintron, the personal driver for Donald Trump before he became the president of the United States, filed a lawsuit Cintron v Trump Organization LLC with the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Manhattan). The lawsuit claims that during his 25-year employment by Trump, he was not compensated for overtime and the second time his salary was raised he was induced to surrender his health insurance, an action which saved Trump approximately $17,866 per year.[142]The lawsuit seeks $178,200 of overtime back pay, plus $5,000 in penalties that are seen under the New York State Labor Law.[143]Assault claims[edit]In September 2015, five men who had demonstrated outside of a Trump presidential campaign event at Trump Tower in New York City sued Donald Trump, alleging that Trump's security staff punched one of them. They also allege that Trump's security guards had been advised by city police that they were permitted to protest there. Several people videotaped the incident.[144][145]In June 2015, the Culinary Workers Union filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging that the owners of Trump Hotel Las Vegas "violated the federally protected rights of workers to participate in union activities" and engaged in "incidents of alleged physical assault, verbal abuse, intimidation, and threats by management".[146]In October 2015, the Trump Ruffin Commercial and Trump Ruffin Tower I, the owners of Trump Hotel Las Vegas, sued the Culinary Workers Union and another union, alleging that they had knowingly distributed flyers that falsely stated that Donald Trump had stayed at a rival unionized hotel, rather than his own non-unionized hotel, during a trip to Las Vegas.[5][146]Poll watching controversy[edit]On October 31, 2016, a New Jersey federal judge, John Michael Vazquez, ordered the Republican National Committee (RNC) to hand over all communications with the Trump campaign related to poll watching and voter fraud. He asked for testimony and documents relating to Kellyanne Conway, RNC officials Ronna Romney McDaniel of Michigan, and Rob Gleason from Pennsylvania.[147]It is claimed Gleason, McDaniel, and Roger Stone recruited poll watchers to check for voter fraud. The state Democratic parties of Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Ohio filed lawsuits against Trump for encouraging illegal voter intimidation. The states' Democratic parties are also suing their respective Republican party counterparts, along with Roger Stone, who is allegedly recruiting poll watchers and organizing ballot security efforts in a number of states. Stone runs the group "Stop the Steal." It claims Trump supporters yelled at voters outside Las Vegas area polling places when they said they weren't voting for the Republican nominee, and that Stone is asking supporters to conduct an illegitimate "exit polling" initiative aimed at intimidating voters of color.Pat McDonald, the director of Cuyahoga County Board of Elections in Ohio, reported that "Trump supporters have already visited the county elections board identifying themselves as poll observers, even though they did not appear to be credentialed as poll observers as required under Ohio law." Election officials have expressed concern about "instability on Election Day," one lawsuit claims, and discussed the possibility of bringing police to polling sites to address conflicts. In Clark County of Nevada, a lawsuit claims: "A Trump supporter harassed and intimidated multiple voters outside of the Albertson's supermarket early voting location on Lake Mead Boulevard, repeatedly asking voters for whom they were voting, and then yelling at them belligerently and attempting to keep them from entering the voting location when they stated they were not voting for Donald Trump." When poll staffers told the Trump supporters to stop harassing voters, "the Trump supporter told poll workers that he had 'a right to say anything he wanted to the voters.'" Poll staffers called police, and the Trump supporter left. The lawsuit also claims similar incidents took place in neighboring Nye County as well. In Pennsylvania, Murrysville City Councilman Josh Lorenz supposedly posted instructions for the way Clinton supporters could vote online, even though there is no online voting in Pennsylvania. Eight registered electors, mostly from the Philadelphia area, challenged the portion of the state Election Code that prevents poll watchers from observing elections outside of the counties where they live.[148][149][150]In Pompano Beach, Florida, police asked two poll watchers to leave a polling site. Two precinct clerks were also fired for not adhering to policy and training. No arrests were made. No other incidents were reported in South Florida.[151][152]Nevada early voting Latino turnout controversy[edit]On November 8, 2016, Trump filed a lawsuit claiming early voting polling places in Clark County, Nevada, were kept open too late. These precincts had high turnout of Latino voters. Nevada state law explicitly states that polls are to stay open to accommodate eligible voters in line at closing time. Hillary Clinton campaign advisor Neera Tanden says the Trump campaign is trying to suppress Latino voter turnout. A political analyst from Nevada, Jon Ralston tweeted that the Trump lawsuit is "insane" in a state that clearly allows the polls to remains open until everyone in line has voted. Former Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, posted the statute that states "voting must continue until those voters have voted". Miller said: "If there are people in line waiting to vote at 7 pm, voting must continue until everyone votes.... We still live in America, right?"[153]A Nevada judge denied Trump's request to separate early voting ballots. Judge Gloria Sturman, of the District Court for Clark County Nevada, ruled that County Registrar of Voters Joe P. Gloria was already obligated by state law to maintain the records that the Trump campaign is seeking. Sturman said: "That is offensive to me because it seems to go against the very principle that a vote is secret."[154][155]Diana Orrock, the Republican National Committeewoman for Nevada and a vocal Trump ally, said she was unaware of the lawsuit before Politico contacted her. "I know that the [Clark County] registrar was on TV this morning saying that anybody who's in line was allowed to participate in the voting process until all of them came through," she said. "If that's what they did, I don't have a problem with that ... I don't know that filing a suit's going to accomplish anything." Orrock doubts the lawsuit will have any impact.[156]Lawsuit for inciting violence at March 2016 campaign rally[edit]During a campaign rally on March 1, 2016, in Louisville, Kentucky, Trump repeatedly said "get 'em out of here" while pointing at anti-Trump protesters as they were forcibly escorted out by his supporters. Three protesters say they were repeatedly shoved and punched while Trump pointed at them from the podium, citing widely shared video evidence of the events. They also cited previous statements by Trump about paying the legal bills of supporters who got violent, or suggesting a demonstrator deserved to be "roughed up."[157][158][159][160]The lawsuit accuses Donald Trump of inciting violence against protesters in Louisville, Kentucky. The plaintiffs are Kashiya Nwanguma (21), Molly Shah (36) and Henry Brousseau (17). The suit is against Trump, his campaign, and three Trump supporters (Matthew Heimbach, Alvin Bamberger and an unnamed defendant). Bamberger, who was wearing a Veteran's uniform in the video, apologized to the Korean War Veterans Association immediately after the event, writing that he "physically pushed a young woman down the aisle toward the exit" after "Trump kept saying 'get them out, get them out."[157]Trump's attorneys requested to get the case dismissed, arguing he was protected by free speech laws, and wasn't trying to get his supporters to resort to violence.[159][161]They also stated that Trump had no duty to the protesters, and they had assumed the personal risk of injury by deciding to protest at the rally.[157]On Friday, April 1, 2017, Judge David J. Hale in Louisville ruled against the dismissal of a lawsuit, stating there was ample evidence to support that the injuries of the protesters were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's words and actions. Hale wrote, "It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force," and, "It was an order, an instruction, a command." Hale wrote that the Supreme Court has ruled out some protections for free speech when used to incite violence.[citation needed]Defendant Heimbach requested to dismiss the discussion in the lawsuit about his association with a white nationalist group, and also requested to dismiss discussion of statements he made about how a President Trump would advance the interests of the group. The request was declined, with the judge saying the information could be important for determining punitive damages because they add context.[157]Hale also declined to remove the allegation that Plaintiff Nwanguma, who is African-American, was victim to ethnic, racial and sexist slurs at the rally from the crowd. The judge stated that this context may support claims by the plaintiffs' of incitement and negligence by Trump and the Trump campaign. The judge wrote, "While the words themselves are repulsive, they are relevant to show the atmosphere in which the alleged events occurred."[157]The judge stated that all people have a duty to use care to prevent foreseeable injury. "In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that their harm was foreseeable and that the Trump Defendants had a duty to prevent it." The case was referred a federal magistrate, Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl, who will handle preliminary litigation, discovery and settlement efforts.[162]Heimbach filed a separate counterclaim in April 2017, arguing that Trump was "responsible for any injuries" he [Heimbach] "might have inflicted because Mr. Trump directed him and others to take action". Heimbach, "a self-employed landscaper", and a member of the Traditionalist Youth Network, "which advocates separate American 'ethno states', "spends much of his time" online writing "against Jews, gays and immigrants and urging whites to stand up for their race." He wrote his own lawsuit which requested that Trump pay Heimbach's "legal fees, citing a promise Mr. Trump made at an earlier rally to pay legal costs of anyone who removed protesters."[163]Heimbach's "counterclaim" against Trump has "probed the limits of free speech and public protest while confronting the courts with a unique legal argument".[163]On May 5, Trump's lawyers submitted legal filings that argue that Heimbach's "indemnity claim should be dismissed on the same grounds". According to a University of Virginia law professor, Leslie Kendrick, this indemnity or "impleader" case is "highly unusual."[163]New York University's Samuel Issacharoff, a professor of constitutional law, argued that care must be taken to not allow speech, in the "context of a political rally" to be "turned into something that is legally sanctionable."[163]Payments related to alleged affairs[edit]See also: Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal and Karen McDougal § Alleged affair with Donald TrumpAdult film actress Stormy Daniels has alleged that she and Trump had an extramarital affair in 2006, months after the birth of his youngest child.[164]Just before the 2016 presidential election Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Trump's attorney Michael Cohen as part of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), through an LLC set up by Cohen; he says he used his own money for the payment.[165]In February 2018, Daniels filed suit against the LLC asking to be released from the agreement so that she can tell her story. Cohen filed a private arbitration proceeding and obtained a restraining order to keep her from discussing the case.[166]According to White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump has denied the allegations.[167]On March 6, 2018, Daniels sued Trump in California Superior Court, claiming among other things that the NDA never came into effect because Trump did not sign it personally.[168]On March 16 Cohen, with Trump's approval, asked for Daniels' suit to be moved from state to federal court, based on the criteria that the parties live in different places and the amount at stake is more than $75,000; Cohen asserted that Daniels could owe $20 million in liquidated damages for breaching the agreement.[169]The filing marked the first time that Trump himself, through his personal attorney, had taken part in the Daniels litigation.[170]In early April 2018, Trump said that he did not know about Cohen paying Daniels, why Cohen had made the payment or where Cohen got the money from.[171]On April 30, Daniels further sued Trump for defamation.[172]In May 2018, Trump's annual financial disclosure revealed that he reimbursed Cohen in 2017 for expenditures related to the Daniels case.[173]In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws, admitting paying hush money of $130,000 and $150,000 "at the direction of a candidate for federal office", to two women who alleged affairs with that candidate, "with the purpose of influencing the election". The figures match sums of payments made to Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal.[174][175]American Media, Inc. had reportedly in 2016 bought for $150,000 the rights to a story by McDougal alleging an affair with a married Trump from 2006 which lasted between nine months to a year.[176][177][178]David Pecker (AMI CEO/chairman and friend of Trump), Dylan Howard (AMI chief content officer) and Allen Weisselberg (chief financial officer of the Trump Organization) were reportedly granted witness immunity in exchange for their testimony regarding the illegal payments.[179][180]In response, Trump said that he only knew about the payments "later on"; Trump also said regarding the payments: "They didn't come out of the campaign, they came from me."[181]The Wall Street Journal reported on November 9, 2018, that federal prosecutors have evidence of Trump's "central role" in payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal that violated campaign-finance laws.[182][183]In a December 7, 2018 sentencing memorandum for Cohen, federal prosecutors implicated Trump in directing Cohen to commit the campaign finance law felonies for which Cohen had pleaded guilty. Shortly after the memorandum court filing, Trump tweeted, “Totally clears the president. Thank you!”[184]Cohen was sentenced to three years in federal prison.[185]On December 13, 2018, Trump denied directing Cohen to make hush payments.[186]That same day, NBC News reported that Trump was present in an August 2015 meeting with Cohen and David Pecker when they discussed how American Media could help counter negative stories about Trump's relationships with women, confirming previous reporting by The Wall Street Journal.[187][188]In 2019, Cohen testified to Congress that Trump did order to pay Stormy Daniels $130,000 as hush money and then lie about the payment.[189]Lawsuits over congressional subpoenas[edit]Further information: Trump v. Mazars USA, LLPIn March 2019, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform opened an investigation into Trump's finances, and issued a subpoena for ten years of his tax returns.[190]Trump later sued the chairman of the committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, seeking to quash the subpoena.[191]In April 2019, Trump (along with his children Eric, Ivanka and Donald Jr, as well as the Trump Organization) sued Deutsche Bank, bank Capital One, his accounting firm Mazars USA, and House Oversight Committee chairman Elijah Cummings, in an attempt to prevent congressional subpoenas revealing information about Trump's finances.[192][193]On May 20, 2019, DC District Court judge Amit Mehta ruled that Mazars must comply with the subpoena.[194]Trump's attorneys filed notice to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit the next day.[195]On May 22, 2019, judge Edgardo Ramos of the federal District Court in Manhattan rejected the Trump suits against Deutsche Bank and Capital One, ruling the banks must comply with congressional subpoenas.[196][197]On October 7, 2019, Judge Victor Marrero of the federal District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a 75-page ruling that Trump must comply with the subpoena and provide his tax returns to a New York grand jury. Minutes later, however, Trump's attorney filed an emergency request with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, which immediately placed a temporary stay on the subpoena.[198]In November, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the former District Court ruling and ordered Trump to turn over his tax returns to Congress.[199]Trump soon appealed to the Supreme Court, which blocked the order by the Second Circuit temporarily.[200]Special Counsel investigation[edit]Main articles: Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) and Mueller ReportThe Special Counsel investigation is a United States law enforcement investigation of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and any Russian (or other foreign) interference in the election, including exploring any possible links or coordination between Trump's campaign and the Russian government, "and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."[201]Since May 2017, the investigation has been led by a United States Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Mueller's investigation took over several FBI investigations including those involving former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former national security advisor Michael Flynn.It has been noted that Trump has experienced a high turnover with respect to the attorneys handling this matter, as well as a large number of prominent lawyers and law firms publicly declining offers to join Trump's legal team.[202][203]On March 22, 2019, Mueller concluded his investigation and gave the final report to Attorney General William Barr.[204]On March 24, Barr sent a four-page letter to Congress summarizing the findings of the report.[205]Barr said that the special counsel found did not find that Trump colluded with Russia. But the report did in fact outline many events of Trump operatives working with Russian operatives to help Trump get elected. On the question of obstruction of justice, Barr stated that Mueller did not reach a conclusion; he quotes the special counsel as saying "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."[206][205]Barr wrote, "The special counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the attorney general to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime," adding that he and Rosenstein "concluded that the evidence developed during the special counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."[207][208]However, Mueller's report does in fact outline dozens of actions Trump took that were in fact obstructing the investigation, and Mueller concluded that he would have charged Trump with crimes had he been allowed to.Allegations of business links to organized crime[edit]Trump maintained a connection with organized crime members to supply the concrete for Trump Tower. According to former New York mobster Michael Franzese, "the mob controlled all the concrete business in the city of New York," and that while Trump was not "in bed with the mob ... he certainly had a deal with us. ... he didn't have a choice."[209]Mafia-connected union boss John Cody supplied Trump with concrete in exchange for giving his mistress a high-level apartment with a pool, which required extra structural reinforcement.[209]Trump admitted in 2014 that he had "had no choice" but to work with "concrete guys who are mobbed up." He further stated that "I don't like getting close to people like that, but they respected me."[209]Journalists David Cay Johnston and Wayne Barrett, the latter of whom wrote an unauthorized 1992 Trump biography, have claimed that Trump and his companies did business with New York and Philadelphia families linked to the Italian-American Mafia.[210][211]A reporter for The Washington Post writes, "he was never accused of illegality, and observers of the time say that working with the mob-related figures and politicos came with the territory."[212]Trump helped a financier for the Scarfo family get a casino license, and constructed a casino using firms controlled by Nicodemo Scarfo.[213]Trump also bought real estate from Philadelphia crime family member Salvatore Testa, and bought concrete from companies associated with the Genovese crime family and the Gambino crime family.[210][211][212]Trump Plaza paid a $450,000 fine leveled by the Casino Gaming Commission for giving $1.6 million in rare automobiles to Robert LiButti, the acquaintance of John Gotti already mentioned.[29]Starting in 2003, the Trump Organization worked with Felix Sater, who had a 1998 racketeering conviction for a $40 million stock fraud scheme orchestrated by the Russian mafia, and who had then become an informant against the mafia.[214][215]Trump's attorney has said that Sater worked with Trump scouting real estate opportunities, but was never formally employed.[216]Use of bankruptcy laws[edit]Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy, but hotel and casino businesses of his have been declared bankrupt four times between 1991 and 2009 to re-negotiate debt with banks and owners of stock and bonds.[217][218]Because the businesses used Chapter 11 bankruptcy, they were allowed to operate while negotiations proceeded. Trump was quoted by Newsweek in 2011 saying, "I do play with the bankruptcy laws – they're very good for me" as a tool for trimming debt.[84][219]These types of bankruptcies are common in the business world for restructuring to avoid having to close a business. In the case of Trump's bankruptcies, three were tied directly to gaming industry, which as a whole had suffered during the time the bankruptcies were declared.[220]According to a report by Forbes in 2011, the four bankruptcies were the result of over-leveraged hotel and casino businesses in Atlantic City: Trump's Taj Mahal (1991), Trump Plaza Hotel (1992), Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts (2004), and Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009).[221][222]Trump said "I've used the laws of this country to pare debt.... We'll have the company. We'll throw it into a chapter. We'll negotiate with the banks. We'll make a fantastic deal. You know, it's like on The Apprentice. It's not personal. It's just business."[223]He indicated that many "great entrepreneurs" do the same.[221]1991[edit]In 1991, Trump Taj Mahal was unable to service its debt and filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy.[223]Forbes indicated that this first bankruptcy was the only one where Trump's personal financial resources were involved. Time, however, maintains that $72 million of his personal money was also involved in a later 2004 bankruptcy.[224]1992[edit]On November 2, 1992, the Trump Plaza Hotel filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and Trump lost his 49 percent stake in the luxury hotel to Citibank and five other lenders.[225]In return Trump received more favorable terms on the remaining $550+ million owed to the lenders, and retain his position as chief executive, though he would not be paid and would not have a role in day-to-day operations.[226]2004[edit]Donald Trump's third corporate bankruptcy was on October 21, 2004, involving Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, the publicly traded holding company for his three Atlantic City casinos and some others.[227]Trump lost over half of his 56% ownership and gave bondholders stock in exchange for surrendering part of the debt. No longer CEO, Trump retained a role as chairman of the board. In May 2005[228]the company emerged from bankruptcy as Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings.[229]In his 2007 book, Think BIG and Kick Ass in Business and Life, Trump wrote: "I figured it was the bank's problem, not mine. What the hell did I care? I actually told one bank, 'I told you you shouldn't have loaned me that money. I told you the goddamn deal was no good.'"[230]2009[edit]Trump's fourth corporate bankruptcy occurred in 2009, when Trump and his daughter Ivanka resigned from the board of Trump Entertainment Resorts; four days later the company, which owed investors $1.74 billion against its $2.06 billion of assets, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. At that time, Trump Entertainment Resorts had three properties in Atlantic City: Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino (closed in 2014), and Trump Marina (formerly Trump's Castle, sold in 2011). Trump and some investors bought the company back that same year for $225 million. As part of the agreement, Trump withdrew a $100 million lawsuit he had filed against the casino's owners alleging damage to the Trump brand. Trump re-negotiated the debt, reducing by over $1 billion the repayments required to bondholders.[231][232]In 2014, Trump sued his former company to remove his name from the buildings since he no longer ran the company, having no more than a 10% stake; he lost the suit.[233]Trump Entertainment Resorts filed again for bankruptcy in 2014[234]and was purchased by billionaire philanthropist Carl Icahn in 2016, who acquired Trump Taj Mahal in the deal.[235]Campaign contributions[edit]According to a New York state report, Trump circumvented corporate and personal campaign donation limits in the 1980s – although he did not break any laws – by donating money to candidates from 18 different business subsidiaries, rather than giving primarily in his own name.[212][236]Trump told investigators he did so on the advice of his lawyers. He also said the contributions were not to curry favor with business-friendly candidates, but simply to satisfy requests from friends.[212][237]Inaugural committee[edit]The New York Times reported in December 2018 that federal prosecutors in Manhattan and Brooklyn are investigating whether Middle Eastern foreigners sought to buy influence over American policies by using straw donors to illegally funnel donations to Trump's inaugural committee and a pro-Trump Super PAC.[238]The Trump inaugural committee received a subpoena from federal prosecutors on February 4, 2019. The SDNY subpoena demanded a comprehensive array of documents involving the committee's donors, finances, attendees and activities.[239]The subpoena reportedly covered allegations of conspiracy to defraud the United States government, money laundering, false statements, mail and wire fraud, disclosure violations and prohibitions against contributions by foreign nations.[240][241]Donald J. Trump Foundation[edit]Main article: Donald J. Trump FoundationDuring the 2016 U.S. presidential election, media began reporting in detail on how the Donald J. Trump Foundation was funded and how Donald Trump used its funds. The Washington Post in particular reported several cases of possible misuse, self-dealing and possible tax evasion.[citation needed]Regarding the various irregularities in the Trump Foundation, former head of the Internal Revenue Service's Office of Exempt Organizations Division Marc Owens told The Washington Post: "This is so bizarre, this laundry list of issues.... It's the first time I've ever seen this, and I've been doing this for 25 years in the IRS, and 40 years total. When interviewed for the Post's article, Trump spokesperson Boris Epshtein said that Trump did not knowingly violate any tax laws.[citation needed]The office of New York State attorney general Eric Schneiderman investigated the foundation "to make sure it's complying with the laws governing charities in New York." The Trump Foundation was in fact found to have committed fraud and misappropriated funds, and was ordered to be shut down.[242]Controversy over tax returns[edit]Main article: Tax returns of Donald TrumpIn October 2016, The New York Times published some tax documents from 1995. Trump claimed on his tax returns that he lost money, but did not recognize it in the form of canceled debts. Trump might have performed a stock-for-debt swap. This would have allowed Trump to avoid paying income taxes for at least 18 years. An audit of Trump's tax returns for 2002 through 2008 was "closed administratively by agreement with the I.R.S. without assessment or payment, on a net basis, of any deficiency." Tax attorneys believe the government may have reduced what Trump was able to claim as a loss without requiring him to pay any additional taxes.[243][244]It is unknown whether the I.R.S. challenged Trump's use of the swaps because he has not released his tax returns. Trump's lawyers advised against Trump using the equity for debt swap, as they believed it to be potentially illegal.[245]Destruction of documents[edit]In June 2016, a USA Today article reported that Donald Trump and his companies have been deleting emails and other documents on a large scale,[246]including evidence in lawsuits, sometimes in defiance of court orders and under subpoena since as early as 1973.[247][248][249]In October 2016, Kurt Eichenwald published new research findings in Newsweek. The findings were first published by Paul Singer[250]on June 13, 2016[251]and gained larger attention[252][253]after a new report in Newsweek on October 31, 2016. According to Newsweek, Trump and his companies "hid or destroyed thousands of documents" involving several court cases from as early as 1973."Over the course of decades, Donald Trump's companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders.... In each instance, Trump and entities he controlled also erected numerous hurdles that made lawsuits drag on for years, forcing courtroom opponents to spend huge sums of money in legal fees as they struggled—sometimes in vain—to obtain records."—Kurt Eichenwald, Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders Newsweek, October 31, 2016In 1973 Trump, his father and their company were in court for civil charges for refusing to rent apartments to African Americans. After their lawyers had delayed court requests for documents for several months, Trump, then being under subpoena, said his company had destroyed corporate records of the past six months "for saving space". In a court case beginning in 2005 against Power Plant Entertainment, LLC, an affiliate of real estate developer Cordish Cos., it was revealed that Trump's companies had deleted the data requested by court.[254]Cordish Cos. had built two American Indian[255]casinos in Florida under the Hard Rock brand and Donald Trump accused them of cheating him out of that deal. Nonetheless, Trump's lawyers had refused to instruct workers to keep all records related to the case during litigation.[247]Trump had established a procedure to delete all data from their employees' computers every year at least since 2003,[252]despite knowing at least since 2001 that he might want to file a lawsuit. Even after the lawsuit was filed, Trump Hotels disposed of a computer of a key witness without having made a backup of the data. A former general counsel of the Trump casino unit confirmed that all data were deleted from nearly all companies' computers annually. Trump and his lawyers claimed they were not keeping records and digital data although it was revealed that Trump had launched his own high-speed internet provider in 1998 and an IBM Domino server had been installed for emails and digital files in 1999.”[247][253]Attribution:Legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.Trafficking is not the same as erotic services as a profession. Anti prostitutionists and anti porn crusaders have feverishly worked to conflate trafficking with erotic services as a profession as if they are one and the same.If people genuinely care about people working in erotic entertainment or people who provide erotic services as a profession, they need to be supporting policies which protect these workers from labor exploitation or discrimination rather than trying to ‘abolish' them which is futile and profoundly destructive.The first step is to listen to what the workers themselves say about what they need and want.The following is a policy agenda developed by the erotic service provider legal education and research project:ESPLERP Policy Agenda 2018ESPLERP Policy Agenda 2018ESPLERP 2018 Policy Agenda PDFErotic Service Providers Legal Education and Research Project (ESPLERP) 2018 Policy AgendaThis Policy Agenda promotes a rights-based approach, whereby consenting adults in the sex industry are neither perpetrators in need of punishment nor victims in need of rescue, but rather individuals with rights and agency who deserve to be recognized as free to make their own choices about their bodies and sexual behavior.Some legislatures are already making progress in this area. For example in 2017:● the District of Columbia moved to decriminalize sex work to promote public safety and health – Promoting Public Safety and Health DRAFT● New Hampshire established a committee to study decriminalizing sex work – New Hampshire HB287 | 2017 | Regular Session.We are hopeful that this Policy Agenda serves as a roadmap both for legislators and organizations, to help them adopt internal and public policies as well as madvance incremental legislation to address the discrimination and stigmatization that affects the sex worker community in general as a result of criminalization of prostitution in specific.ESPLERP MissionThe Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project (ESPLERP) is a diverse community-based erotic service provider led group which seeks to advance sexual privacy rights through legal advocacy, education, and research. In our legal advocacy, we create change through impact litigation and policy statements. This often involves education activities for policy makers and the public. And in our research work, our evaluation tool (ESPLERP Research Evaluation Tool) helps the public and academics maintain ethically and scientifically rigorous standards.As a prime example of impact ligitation, in March 2015, ESPLERP filed a complaint with the United States Federal District Court (http://esplerp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/001_Complaint.pdf), known as ESPLERP v Gascon [case 16-15027], which challenged California’s anti-prostitution law, Penal Code 647(b), arguing for the decriminalization of sex work – that these laws deprive individuals of the fundamental right to engage in consensual, private sexual activity.We have some heavy hitters on our side. Decriminalization of sex work is supported by Amnesty International, the World Health Organization, the Lancet, Human Rights Watch, and the UN Global Commission on HIV and the Law. And our case is supported by amicus briefs from over thirty civil rights and LGBTQ organizations, including the ACLU, Lamdba Legal, the Free Speech Coalition, and the Transgender Law Center – Amicus Briefs Filed In Support Of ESPLERP v Gascon.The legal process is slow and long-winded, but it is an important strand in our fight for sexual privacy. But equally, as well as being criminalized, sex workers are subject to significant social and economic stigma and discrimination. Therefore, the Erotic Service Providers Legal Education and Research Project (ESPLERP) sets forth the following practical legislative steps toward enfranchising all aspects of sex work.Definitions and CommunityWe define an erotic service provider (aka sex worker) as anyone, who earns a living from their erotic labor, including prostitutes (whether working indoors in massage parlors or brothels, in their homes or on an outcall basis to homes or hotels, or outdoors on the street), exotic or burlesque dancers and strippers, adult film performers, escorts, courtesans, dominants, submissives, phone sex operators and webcam performers.Anyone who consensually engages the services of an erotic service provider, we consider a client – not a “trafficker” or an “exploiter”, and also not a “john” (a slang term that is sexist and derogatory).Directly relying for their livelihood on the jobs of erotic service providers are support staff who act in capacities such as receptionists, agents, managers, drivers, warehouse workers, security, photographers, and even janitors in adult clubs.Beyond these support staff, there are also third parties whose livelihoods rely more indirectly but often substantially upon erotic service providers, such as website owners and operators, hairdressers, makeup artists, dance club owners, gym owners and personal trainers, taxi and rideshare providers, and even hospitality industry staff who work in the hotels and other establishments used by erotic service providers and their clients.We consider part of our community anyone who is an erotic service provider or who knowingly and consensually hires, pays, or provides support to an erotic service provider, and also our friends and family members who support us (whether in a formal or informal capacity).BackgroundLegislation has too often relied upon, or been an accomplice to, the criminalization of our labor as prostitutes / sex workers. We believe that, as argued in ESPLERP v Gascon [case 16-15027], this is clearly in violation of our constitutional right to sexual privacy.Many statutes define erotic service providers as “victims”, fail to recognize the agency of erotic service providers or our clients, and fail to provide equal protection under the law for members of our community. Labeling us as victims encourages a law enforcement approach toward our community, since the presence of a “victim” implicitly assumes the existence of corresponding “perpetrators” who must be brought to justice.The state commits violence against sex workers by● harassing them – the Urban Justice Center found that 30% of street-based sex workers in New York had been threatened with violence by police officers, while 27% actually experienced violence at the hands of police – Revolving Door - Fact Sheet● arresting them — prostitution arrests are the usual means by which persons are labeled sex trafficking victims● victimizing them during incarceration (from other inmates, guards, from losing income, from being forced to work, from being away from family)● denying them access to support services, legal advocacy and safe space shelter● forcing them into state-provided or state-funded “diversion services”, which typically offer arrested sex workers the only way to avoid further prosecution● fining them, subjecting them to probation and loss of rights, and saddling them with a damaging criminal record.Anti-TraffickingLaws like the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act and California’s Proposition 35, use overly broad definitions which define our everyday personal and professional relationships as criminal associations, essentially defining our spouses, domestic partners, boyfriends and girlfriends, roommates, landlords, support staff, and others, may be prosecuted as sex traffickers and even forced to register as “sex offenders”.There are vast Federal investments in grants to “anti-trafficking” NGOs, where in collaboration with Federal and State agencies, they mount high profile prostitution sting operations under the guise of “rescue” such as Operation Cross Country (Is Operation Cross Country the Best Way to Fight Child Sex Trafficking?), which typically fail to find “traffickers”, but do criminalize consensual sex workers and their clients, and certainly do not provide services (such as counselling, housing, education) to ensnared individuals who are just trying to make a living.This slew of trafficking laws put the lives of both coerced victims and consenting erotic service providers in danger by maintaining a black market which attracts violence and creates unsafe working conditions. The cover story of the November 2015 issue of Reason Magazine accurately declares that “The War on Sex Trafficking Is the New War on Drugs” (The War on Sex Trafficking Is the New War on Drugs). In effect, the “War on Sex Trafficking” is a war on people who exchange sex for money, and primarily a war on women of color.Another major consequence of the current approach to “sex trafficking” is that law enforcement is empowered to seize property, without due process, even if the property owner is never charged with a crime. In practice, property seizure results in untraceable profit for law enforcement agencies and their non-profit collaborators. For example, the Department of Homeland Security seized $1.4 million from Rentboy.com, and we have no idea how that money was spent. The only people who do not benefit from such seizures are the sex workers on the sharp end.The narrative on sex trafficking has now expanded to include “children” – whereby everyone under 18 who is found to be involved in prostitution is automatically defined as a “trafficked victim” – per the 2003 Federal Reauthorization Trafficking Victims Act. And in addition, at the State level, “Safe Harbor Laws” are being touted as a means to recognize youth as “victims” – which implies that no charges of prostitution should result. However, both the Federal and State approaches remand underaged people into “protective custody”, where they are often held in “witness protection” until they testify against someone. Therefore laws like California SB1322 that mandates law enforcement to transfer such youth to “welfare services” actually violates youth right to due process. (SB-1322 Commercial sex acts: minors.).In contrast to this law enforcement focus, research shows that funding long term necessities for youth (safe housing, employment, education, food, and money) is a far better approach – https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Youth%20Involvement%20in%20the%20Sex%20Trade_3.pdfPrinciplesWe believe the following principles should be paramount in all legislative initiatives that affect our community.1. Nothing About Us, Without Us – When it comes to laws affecting people involved in the sex industry, the voices of those stakeholders must be heard front and center, and attitudes that “other” us and deny our agency must be excised from the legislative process.2. Our Bodies, Our Rights – Consenting adults have the right to be free from state criminalization of their sex lives, whether or not money is exchanged or any other consideration is involved.3. Individual Privacy, Institutional Transparency – Any legislation that affects our community must protect our privacy, and must guarantee that government agencies and service providers operate are held accountable for treating people humanely, non-coercively, and with integrity, dignity and respect.Policy AgendaThe criminalization of consensual sex creates a system with multiple levels of social and institutional discrimination. We therefore call for a rights-based approach which recognizes consenting adults in the sex industry as neither perpetrators in need of punishment nor victims in need of rescue, but rather individuals with rights and agency who deserve to be free to make their own choices about their bodies and their sexual relations.We therefore propose the following legislative steps toward ensuring greater safety and enfranchisement for erotic service providers.1. End discrimination against erotic service providers, clients and support staffa. Repeal moral turpitude lawsThese archaic laws limit the ability of people to gain employment after a prostitution arrest. Even non-criminalized erotic service providers such as exotic dancers, adult film performers, massage parlour staff, agency support staff, phone sex operators, professional dominatrixes/submissives and webcam performers may be negatively impacted by these laws. For example, Stacie Halas, a permanent certified teacher, was dismissed by her employer, Oxnard School District, when they learned of her previous employment in adult film – http://crypticphilosopher.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/120680877-Stacie-Halas-decision.pdf.b. Prohibit discrimination in access to publicly funded servicesIn its 2015 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights (UPR Report of the United States of America), the State Department affirmed United Nations Recommendation #86, stating, “We agree that no one should face violence or discrimination in access to public services based on sexual orientation or their status as a person in prostitution”. But there are numerous instances of State laws and regulations that still discriminate against our community. For instance, the California Victims Compensation Fund maintains language banning those who have been injured in the course of a prostitution transaction from receiving benefits. Language singling out people who work or have worked in porngraphy and/or prostitution is another form of victim-blaming and is completely inappropriate treatment of victims of sexual assault.c. Prohibit discrimination in judicial proceedingsVery often, erotic service providers are treated unfavourably in family court hearings (for example, covering child custody and/or divorce settlements). For example, Jessica Hernandez lost custody to an abusive partner, who subsequently killed the child, because the judge disdriminated against her based on her legal occupation as a stripper – Mother of slain child blames judge for death.d. Prohibit the use of sex worker status as grounds for discriminationPeople applying to State or local government for housing, education, or employment, should not be subject to discrimination based on their occupation. But, for example, Oakland’s 2014 “nuisance ordinance” targets prostitutes, and allows for the removal of tenants due to their perceived status. Such laws place the onus on the person being discriminated against to prove that they are not a prostitute. And mean that low-income tenants, transgender residents, and people of color are targeted and made homeless.2. Grant immunity from prosecution for prostitution offences to erotic service providers and our clients and support staff when they report more serious crimesCurrent legislation discourages erotic service providers, our clients and support staff, from reporting serious crimes. For example, the excessive fines imposed by California Proposition 35 discourages reporting crimes. This provides cover to the small number of actual sex traffickers, corrupt law enforcement officers, coercive third parties, and others who prey upon erotic service providers while leaving victims and witnesses of crime exposed to penalties.3. Establish a ‘Vacatur Law’ to automatically remove prostitution convictions and arrests from criminal and public recordsA ‘Vacatur Law” should be established whereby prostitution convictions and arrests can be automatically and completely removed from criminal and public records, without requiring people with criminal records to go through a complicated, onerous and expensive legal process.4. Prohibit the possession of condoms as evidence of prostitution in arrests or prosecutionsIn many jurisdictions, law enforcement and prosecutors can use possession of condoms as evidence of prosecution. In California, AB 336 went some way toward addressing this issue, but it still left the door open for prosecutors to make special motions allowing condoms to be used as evidence.5. Prohibit gender identity, sexual orientation and racial profiling of sex workersAs the ACLU argues in its supporting amicus brief for ESPLERP v Gascon (http://esplerp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/22-Brief-of-American-Civil-Liberties-Union-Foundation1.pdf), legislation criminalizing sex workers, their clients and support staff, is “discriminatorily enforced against women (transgender and cisgender) and people who are LGBTQ and gender non conforming”. Women of color, transgender women and LGBTQ youth should not have to fear being arrested for prostitution just because a law enforcement officer considers their appearance indicative of prostitution.6. Prohibit mandatory HIV testing and repeal laws that criminalize HIV positive statusWith new medical advances against HIV (such as Truvada), the current level of state coercion employed against people with compromised immune systems is inappropriate. In California, with the passing of SB 239 in 2017, knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection, is now a misdemeanor, which is the same status as other STDs. We supported SB 239, but we need legislation to go further and decriminalize HIV status altogether.7. Monitor peer counseling ‘services’ provided by anti-trafficking or anti-prostitution non-profit groups and rape crisis centers receiving public fundingAnti-trafficking groups, anti-prostitution groups and rape crisis centers in receipt of public funds should be subject to independent ethics oversight. For example, Bay Area Women Against Rape, employed in the past an older man as a peer counsellor, who in additional to providing ‘counciling to adult women, as accompanied law enforcement on anti-prostitution sting operations claiming to rescue trafficked victims, specifically minors, and then acted as a primary “peer” counselor for the “rescued” minors. This presents a clear ethical conflict. And an older man counseling a minor does not meet the definition of peer-to-peer counseling let alone women in general. Such arrangements are ripe with potential for self dealing and conflict of interest and should be subject to independent ethics oversight.8. Implement a grievance process in publicly-funded anti-prostitution/anti-trafficking groups, rape crisis centers and domestic violence sheltersNon-profits and NGOs that provide services to prostitutes or trafficking victims, in particular rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters, should be required to notify all service recipients of the process by which they can file complaints about the quality of the services they receive. State records of all such complaints should be maintained and available to the public, and any non-profits or NGOs that show consistently poor user satisfaction or engage in unacceptable practices should promptly be made ineligible for public funding.9. Implement public reporting requirements for law enforcement agencies that perform prostitution and human trafficking arrests, incarcerations and convictionsCurrently law enforcement agencies and task forces that perform prostitution and human trafficking operations, arrests, incarcerations and convictions, operate with a near complete absence of transparency. For example those that are listed here in the recent new report. More than 500 arrested, dozens saved in statewide crackdown on human trafficking They should be subject to Federal, State, county or city oversight, and be required toa. make all meetings open to the publicb. publish names and roles of task force membersc. publish annual audits with all costs, including overtime pay, and any costs incurred by participating non-profitsd. publish anonymised details of arrests and convictions, together with demographic data (gender, age, race) on those who have been arrested and/or convictede. publish all Memoranda of Understanding between task forces, law enforcement agencies, non-profits or other agenciesf. implement public reporting requirements for publicly-funded non-profits and NGOs that provide services related to prostitution or human trafficking.10. Expand Privacy LawsWe require laws that protect the digital privacy of erotic service providers. The USA has signed on to the the UN Treaty on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), but there are many ways in which developments in surveillance have premptively violated our privacy.a. Stingray devices (also known as International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI)-catchers) were initially developed for the military and intelligence community, but are now in widespread use by local and State law enforcement agencies, who use them to violate the privacy of erotic service providers. There is clearly a need for laws banning the use of these devices without a warrant to ensure that constitutional rights are protected.b. Our images are routinely scraped from public online ads sites and are published onto other online sites without our permission. This activity should be made criminally illegal, as erotic service providers have limited access to civil courts to pursue justice.c. We oppose license schemes that would expose erotic service providers to harassment and discrimination – such as requiring our legal names, date of birth, and social security numbers, and requiring us to submit to criminal background checks (Do licensing rules put adult entertainers at risk?). For example, a privacy watchdog in the Netherlands found that compulsory registration of sex workers breached privacy rules (http://thttp://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/08/registration-of-sex-workers-breaches-right-to-privacy-says-court/11. Protect the privacy of erotic service providers, clients, and support staff during undercover sting or surveillance operationsLaw enforcement agencies who invite journalists/media or members of nonprofits to accompany them on operations targeting the erotic service provider community should be required to inform such third parties that they are not allowed to film or record a person who is caught up in an operation, being arrested or in custody, without that individual’s consent. Such filming by “embedded” journalists and others violates our right to privacy, leads to exploitation of individuals, and stigmatizes the industry as a whole (see walk-a-mile-in-my-shoes/the-rescue-scam and Starchild’s testimony about having his rights violated during a prostitution sting operation. Starchild testimony.12. Establish regulations restricting prosecutorial misconductIt is unacceptable for prosecutors to coerce defendants in sex trafficking and prostitution cases into giving up their rights to due process and their day in court by threatening to go after them with draconian charges if they don’t accept plea bargains. There is a growing movement calling for limitations on prosecutors’ ability to force defendants to plea to charges they may not have committed. The State should establish strong penalties for such misconduct to deter prosecutors from abusing their power.13. Prohibit sexual contact by law enforcement during investigationsLaw enforcement officers and their agents should be prohibited from any sexual contact, including penetration, with anyone who is under investigation and/or in their custody or who are victims and/or . /,witnesses. Any violation should be prosecuted as a criminal sexual assault offence and restitution should be obtainable in civil courts. For example, Michigan Governor signed into law House Bill 4355 and Senate Bill 275 in 2017 outlawing police having sex with prostitutes on duty by removing an exemption that previously blocked their prosecution. Alaska State bills HB112 and SB73 propose to take legislation one step further and make it felony criminal acts for officers to have sexual contact and penetration with those they are investigating for prostitution.ConclusionIn conclusion, anti prostitution and anti trafficking laws contribute to the disenfranchisement of our community. This disenfranchisement, and a lack of public accountability in law enforcement, state agencies and nonprofits, misallocates precious taxpayer resources, as well as deterring reports from community members who have been actual victims of rape, robbery, theft, coercion, battery, assault, stalking, or murder. Continuing these failed policies based on faulty definitions is going in precisely the opposite direction to the growing global consensus on the human rights of erotic service providers and clearly puts members of our community at risk while undermining public safety.Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project (ESPLERP)2261 Market St. #548 San Francisco, CA 94114info(AT)Sex Workers and Erotic Service Providers Legal, Educational and Research Project, esplerp(DOT)org, decriminalizesexwork(DOT)comSex Workers Consider Supreme Court Appeal After Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing on Anti-Prostitution LawESPLERP Files For A Rehearing Before Full Ninth Circuit To Continue Fight For Sexual PrivacyDonateHelp Support our Work at ESPLERP.orglpESPLERP is a 501(c) 3. Your donation is tax deductible.

They can do so because the PEOPLE don’t report it. It can be considered a method of discrimination in that the Police hold themselves harmless from prosecution and yet hold the Citizenry accountable to the law. This activity is unconscionable. If no one is above the law, then the Officer ‘s Department Chief should receive your and other’s notices of Warning, or statement of Arrest for conduct unbecoming of a Police Officer. The PEOPLE also have the Power of Arrest for a Crime. If the Department fails to correct the Officers, then you can initiate a Deprivation of a Right under the Color of Law. That right is redress (the act or an instance of setting right a wrong; remedy or cure: to seek redress of grievances). That is a Constitutional Right (The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals, ensured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791).Now here is your Power Point: READ AND LEARN! STOP COMPLAINING TAKE BACK THE POWERS OF THE PEOPLE.TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAWWhoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141Pattern and PracticeTitle 42, U.S.C., Section 14141: makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. This law is commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute. This law gives DOJ the authority to seek civil remedies in cases where it is determined that law enforcement agencies have policies or practices which foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a Pattern and Practice investigation include:1. Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions.2. Officers not providing justification or reporting incidents involving the use of force.3. Lack of, or improper training of officers.4. A department having a citizen complaint process which treats complainants as adversaries.Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.Types of misconduct covered include, among other things:1. Excessive Force2. Discriminatory Harassment3. False Arrest4. Coercive Sexual Conduct5. Unlawful Stops, Searches, or ArrestsTitle 18, U.S.C., Section 241Conspiracy Against RightsThis statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. "Color of law" simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal). Criminal acts under color of law include acts not only done by local, state, or federal officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered under color of law, if the perpetrator asserted their official status in some manner. Color of law may include public officials who are not law enforcement officers, for example, judges and prosecutors, as well as, in some circumstances, non governmental employees who are asserting state authority, such as private security guards. While the federal authority to investigate color of law type violations extends to any official acting under "color of law", the vast majority of the allegations are against the law enforcement community. The average number of all federal civil rights cases initiated by the FBI from 1997 -2000 was 3513. Of those cases initiated, about 73% were allegations of color of law violations. Within the color of law allegations, about 82% were allegations of abuse of force with violence (59% of the total number of civil rights cases initiated).Investigative AreasMost of the FBI's color of law investigations would fall into five broad areas:1. excessive force;2. sexual assaults;3. false arrest/fabrication of evidence;4. deprivation of property; and5. failure to keep from harm.In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to utilize whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breath and scope of the use of force is vast. The spectrum begins with the physical presence of the official through the utilization of deadly force. While some types of force used by law enforcement may be violent by their very nature, they may be considered "reasonable," based upon the circumstances. However, violations of federal law occur where it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive" against individuals.Sexual assaults by officials acting under "color of law" could happen in a variety of venues. They could occur in court scenarios, jails, and/or traffic stops to name just a few of the settings where an official might use their position of authority to coerce another individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the other if they do not comply.The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using his authority provided under the "color of law" is allowed to stop individuals and even if necessary to search them and retain their property under certain circumstances. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power that a violation of a person's civil rights might occur. An unlawful detention or an illegal confiscation of property would be examples of such an abuse of power.An official would violate the color of law statute by fabricating evidence against or conducting a false arrest of an individual. That person's rights of due process and unreasonable seizure have been violated. In the case of deprivation of property, the official would violate the color of law statute by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining the property of another. In that case, the official has overstepped or misapplied his authority.The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process and the Eighth Amendment also prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. In an arrest or detention context, these rights would prohibit the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The idea being that a person accused of a crime is to be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.The public entrusts its law enforcement officials with protecting the community. If it is shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.The Supreme Court has had to interpret the United States Constitution to construct law regulating the actions of those in the law enforcement community. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.Acting under color of [state] law is misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law Thompson v. Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007)“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void.”(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County.” 118 U.S. 425“If the State converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262“No State legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.” Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622“The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616“State courts, like federal courts, have a “constitutional obligation” to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law.” Stone v. Powell 428 US 465, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067.“The obligation of state courts to give full effect to federal law is the same as that of federal courts.” New York v. Eno. 155 US 89, 15 S. Ct. 30, 39 L. Ed. 80.“An administrative agency may not finally decide the limits of its statutory powers; this is a judicial function.” Social Security Board v. Nierotko. 327 US 358, 66 S. Ct. 637, 162 ALR 1445, 90 L. Ed. 719."State Police Power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, welfare, etc.," Michigan v. Duke 266 US, 476 Led. At 449: which driving and speeding are not. California v. Farley Ced. Rpt. 89, 20 CA3d 1032 (1971):"For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional right." Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945:"If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed." Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42. “The Accuser Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.Title 42 Penalties For Government OfficersThe AUTHORITY FOR FINES (DAMAGES) CAUSED BY CRIMES BY GOVERNMENT OFFICERS.These Damages were determined by GOVERNMENT itself for the violation listed.Breach Penalty AuthorityVIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE $250,000.00 18 USC 3571DENIED PROPER WARRANT(S) $250,000.00 18 USC 3571DENIED RIGHT OF REASONABLEDEFENSE ARGUMENTS $250,000.00 18 USC 3571DEFENSE EVIDENCE (RECORDS) $250,000.00 18 USC 357IDENIED RIGHT TO TRUTHIN EVIDENCE $250,000.00 18 USC 3571SLAVERY (Forced Complianceto contracts not held) $250,000.00 18 USC 3571DENIED PROVISIONS IN THECONSTITUTION $250,000.00 18 USC 3571TREASON (combined above actions). $250,000.00 18 USC 3571GENOCIDE $1,000,000.00 18 USC 1091MISPRISION OF FELONY $500.00 18 USC 4CONSPIRACY $10,000.00 18 USC 241EXTORTION $5,000.00 18 USC 872MAIL THREATS $5,000.00 18 USC 876FRAUD $10,000.00 18 USC 1001FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS $10,000.00 18 USC 1001PERJURY $2,000.00 18 USC 1621SUBORNATION OF PERJURY $2,000.00 18 USC 1622GRAND THEFT (18 USC 2112) each $250,000.00To determine multiply no. of counts by damage 18 USC 3571RACKETEERING (Criminal) $25,000.00 18 USC 1963RACKETEERING (Civil)Wages Taken $x3 = 5? 18 USC 1964(Sustained Damages [total] x 3)Thirty-seven (37) Constitutional violations from Count 1: = $9,250,000.00 Damages Dealing with claims of "immunity."Any claim of " immunity" is a fraud because, if valid, it would prevent removal from office for crimes against the people, which removal is authorized or even mandated under U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section IV; as well as 18 USC 241, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, and other state Constitutions.Precedents of Law established by COURT cases, which are in violation of law, render violations of law legally unassailable. Such a situation violates several specifically stated intents and purposes of the Constitution set forth in the Preamble; to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the-blessings of liberty. This is for JUDGES, or anyone in any branch of government.SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTIONSEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION:1. The accused must be properly identified, identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to arrest and trial without benefit of "wrong party" defense. Almost always, the means of identification is a person's proper name, BUT ANY MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION IS EQUALLY VALID IF SAID MEANS DIFFERENTIATES THE ACCUSED WITHOUT DOUBT. (There is no constitutionally valid requirement you must identify yourself, see 4th Amendment; also see, Brown vs. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v. Lawson 461 US 352.)2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example: colorado National Monument Superintendent's Orders regarding an unleashed dog or a dog defecating on a trail). If a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to be a crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense, by affirmative non-applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the law.3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of. The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of the acts of the offense describes a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.4. The accuser must be named. He/she may be an officer or a third party, but some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse; some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that they heard that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.6. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom, and all dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process."The essential elements of due process are notice and an opportunity to defend. “Simon v. Craft, 182 US 427."one is not entitled to protection unless he has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer. The mere assertion of a privilege does not immunize him; the court must determine whether his refusal is justified, and may require that he is mistaken in his refusal. “Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951)7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e., Article III judge.Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); it is the defendant's duty to inform the court of facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and charge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense. Without lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the seven elements is void. A lawful act is always legal but many legal acts by government are often unlawful. Most bureaucrats lack elementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of constitutional due process. They will make mistakes. Numbers beyond count have been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to these seven elements. Today, informations are being filed and prosecuted by "accepted practice" rather than due process of law.Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See, “McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp, 298 U.S. 178 (1936). The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in “MAXFIELD v. LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2 Dall. 381 2 U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424Supreme courts ruled "Without Corpus delicti there can be no crime"“In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or elements of the crime.” People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185."In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. " People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.].“Elements of “corpus delecti,” injury or loss or harm and a criminal agency which causes such injury, loss or harm, need only be proven by a “reasonable probability,” i.e., by slight or prima facie proof… ” People v. Ramirez, 153 Cal.Rptr. 789, 791, 91 C.A. 132.““Corpus delecti” of crime consists of fact of injury, loss, or harm, and existence of criminal agency as cause. ” People v. Daly, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 21, 28, 8 CA4th 47.“Generally, “corpus delecti” of crime is (1) the fact of the loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. ” People v. Dorsey, 118 Cal.Rptr. 362, 43 CA3d 953."There is no requirement of independent evidence 'of every physical act constituting an element of an offense,' so long as there is some slight or prima facie showing of injury, loss, or harm by a criminal agency. " In re I.M., 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 375, 381 (2005)."The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements[:] the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. " People v. Jones, 949 P.2d 890, 902, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 793, 17 Cal.4th 279.“The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused’s extrajudicial confession or admissions. The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] “People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443…People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d 729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375; Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359 US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW 821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350 Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21…there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.” 29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.“Without standing, there is no actual or justiciable controversy, and courts will not entertain such cases. (3 Witlen, Cal. Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Actions § 44, pp 70-72.) “Typically, … the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted. ” (Allen v. Wright, (1984) 468 U.S. 737, 752…Whether one has standing in a particular case generally revolved around the question whether that person has rights that may suffer some injury, actual or threatened. ” Clifford S. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 335."As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury. " People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793."Judicial power generally is the power to adjudicate upon the legal rights of persons and property, with reference to transactions or occurrences existing or already had and closed...The judicial function is to 'declare the law and define the rights of the parties under it. “Frasher v. Rader, 124 Cal. 133, 56 P. 797...'A determination of the rights of an individual under the existing laws' is an exercise of judicial power...An essential element of judicial power, distinguishing it from legislative power, is that it requires "the ascertainment of existing rights." People v. Bird, 300 P. 22, 26-27., there are 2 elements to corpus delcti injury,loss(damage) redress ability of the court.Posted by Chris/Blue Collar Moto at 9:53 AM